Like this:

Some of my friends from the Discovery Institute will be teaching a one-day conference on intelligent design at the Rock Church in San Diego (Point Loma campus) on Saturday, September 15. Jay Richards, Casey Luskin, John West, Ray Bohlin, and others will be covering topics like junk DNA, science and faith, intelligent design 2.0, C.S. Lewis and scientism, human origins, and more.

Like this:

In the video below, Muslim apologist Shabir Ally explains the two main reasons why he doesn’t accept the doctrine of the Trinity:

It’s unscriptural. We’re told to worship one God in the Bible. Jesus starts off as “very human” in Mark, then his status is raised bit by bit in the other Gospels, then the idea develops “over the ages” until He is declared to be God by the Council of Nicaea.

It’s unreasonable. If you say that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, then you are describing three gods. Christians try to say there are three persons in one God, but to every reasonable mind “that adds up to three gods.” Therefore, to say you believe in one God and three persons who are God is a contradiction.

How do you respond to this challenge? Tell us how you would answer Shabir Ally, and we’ll hear Brett’s answer on Thursday.

Like this:

This week’s challenge is adapted from an objection sent by Doubting Eric:

You said that objective moral values are self-evidently true. How can we know this? Why would the fact that I intuit something to be true be considered evidence that it really is true? How would we be able to tell the difference between a truly objective moral value and a genetic adaptation that encourages moral behavior? They would both “feel” the same. You would “just know” that torturing babies for fun is wrong in the same way that you would if that was an objective moral truth. (The instinctual genetic origin of such a moral intuition or conscience could be easily demonstrated with examples from the wider animal kingdom.)

I don’t think we can tell the difference by our intuition. All we can really know is that WE PERSONALLY feel like this or that is the right thing to do. There is no reliable way of determining if there are moral values and duties that are actually objective.

Any ideas about how to respond to this one? Leave your thoughts below, then stick around for Thursday when we’ll hear Brett’s response.

Like this:

If you haven’t seen this chart on Facebook yet, you probably will. How will you, or how did you, respond? It saddens me because it shows that people aren’t aware of the arguments actually being made against same-sex marriage, and they have even less of an understanding of Christian theology. But they’re unaware of their lack of understanding on both counts because they’re getting all their information from the people they agree with.

But now, here you are! Your friend is asking you what you think, and you have an opportunity to answer. What do you say? Tactically, how would you go about responding to this? The difficult thing about a chart like this is that it expresses so many different objections that could be addressed. Your friends are unlikely to read an extremely long, detailed answer on Facebook, so how would you engage them on this topic in a productive way? What would you address first, knowing that you may not have a chance to answer everything?

Give us your ideas, and we’ll hear a response to this chart from Alan on Thursday.